Physical idealism

[The Grand Nudger]

It's like you think refusing to read is a slam-dunk argument-winning technique.  I said maybe 3 times that ideas require A mechanism, but not a particular mechanism-- making the idea independent of a specific medium in the same way that an .mp3 file is.

MP3 files -aren't- independent of a specific medium........but who cares, right?  Not that this inaccuracy is, ultimately, the reason I find this unsatisfying no matter how many times you repeat it.  Nothing about being independent of a particular medium makes it sensible to call something an idea, physical or otherwise.  

In a bullet factory, someone sets up machinery in order to create bullets.  Are there bullets there?  No.  Someone has an idea about the thing that should be created, and brings into effect their creation.

Firstly, lets consider the absurdity of using this example for something which you also feel is equally applicable to the evolution of biological structures...and secondly...so what?  Their idea isn't fundamental to existence of a projectile.  Their idea isn't even how they "bring into effect" their creation.  

So is an .mp3 song, or the collected works of Shakespeare.  A pretty dense person would say, "That's not ideas. . . that's material!" as though they are mutually exclusive.  The point is that the particular collection of organic chemicals serve as a collection of FORMATIVE PRINCIPLES.  Get it?

Yes, I get it.....and it doesn't change my opinion of the claims you've put forward in support of tha, or my opinion of the sensibility in describing the things you've chosen to mention as such.

That's the definition of idea in this context.  A formative principle, something which represents a potential object which does not yet exist.

see above.

Polly want a cracker?  This does not describe materialism.  It describes those aspects of materialism which involve the persistence of patterns, specifically formative principles which bring into reality objects which don't already exist.

Ideas of bullets don't bring bullets into reality...so I guess the idea of a bullet isn't a formative principle after all -by your own definition.

Get this, and drop it.  I'm not arguing against materialism.  I'm talking about specifics aspects of it.  It's like I want to talk about QM and you say, "Hey!  You're just talking about physics!"

I gotta say I think I'm about at the end with you in this thread.  Either I'm unable to explain my ideas clearly enough for you to understand, or you are deliberately refusing to get the point so you can keep making strawman arguments.  Either way, the effort of trying to respond to you is pretty quickly surpassing my interest in engaging in this conversation.

You left out a third option...which I would combine with your first.  You have an innaccurate view of MP3 files, evolution, and small arms manufacturing...and difficulty describing whatever it is you're thinking that isn't actually related to or found within any of those examples.